Thomas Friedman: Useful Idiot

With his book Hot, Flat and Crowded Thomas Friedman has entered the world of the Futurist.

The term futurist isn’t really used much any more, mainly because futurists are always wrong. Futurism was big in the 1970’s – such people as Alvin Toffler, Paul Erhlich, James Hansen, John Holdren and the club of Rome are famous futurists from that era. Think sideburns, big hair, tight polyester pants, and disco. Who would want to be associated with that tacky garbage. Current futurists inlcude Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, John Holdren, GCMs and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

In the 1970’s futurism became popular because of the advent of relatively inexpensive computing power. Using the magic of mathematics, the veneer of technology, and the credulity of the public and politicians dazzled by the scientific priest class, these futurists were taken seriously.

This is not a happy state of affairs because futurism is a type of fortune telling, which was once trusted by many, but since the advent of the scientific method, has largely been discredited.

This is unfortunate because although futurists are always wrong, like fortune tellers they continue to have credibility with certain people. Fortune tellers are actually better at their job because they are sufficiently vague and their predictions can be applied to a wide range of outcomes. Futurists make the mistake of claiming certainty. So when their predictions do not come true, it should be easy to discredit them. For some reason they are not. I think this is because at some unconcious level people understand that futurism is a kind of fortue telling, and so give them a bit of a break. As my father said to me a little while ago they’ll be right sometime. Sorry dad, but this is not true.

This is unfortunate because political and economic policy is is based on these predictions, and can seriously affect peoples lives in negative ways.

Doubly unfortunate, most of the current crop of futurists are also Malthusians.

Triply unfortunate, these futurists are given positions of power. I. E. John Holdren as Obamas science czar. And James Hansen head of NASA-GISS.

But back to Friedman, I’ll touch on the futurists again in the “future”.

Friedman isn’t a true futurist, as he isn’t a scientist himself. Instead he gathers the various futurist predictions together and mixes them with his personal prejudices and then goes on to paint a portrait of what he thinks will be the future.

One not need to read his book to discredit it, as he has put all of his predictions right in the title. Let’s go through them one by one.


Given that the earth has now cooled for 12 years, that one seems to have been proven wrong as he was writing it. Too bad he didn’t check the temperature records because he could have changed the first word in his title to “Cold”. Of course as Richard Lindzen said when he was asked about the future temperature, it will either be warmer or cooler. So Friedman could yet be proven right, but not due to any particularly magical insight on his part, instead due to random chance. So maybe we could go with “Temperate”.


I understand that this refers to his book, “the world is flat“(funny isn’t it how warmists call climate rationalists “Flat Earthers” and Friedman is so filled with credulity when it comes to the warmists?) and describes the rise of globalization, and the increasing spread of ideas and people around the globe. As I write environmentalists are proposing massive taxes on flying, and the British government seriously suggested giving people a carbon ration card. Policies such as Cap and Trade would make travel and international trade more expensive and I am guessing that since countries that enact Cap and Trade would not want to have to compete against a country that does not place an arbitrary price on the trace gas co2, they would put some sort of tarriff on their goods, which of course is protectionism.

On the side of ideas, governments around the world are proposing Chinese style net censorship, restricting the free exchange of ideas they find objectionable, and stifling dissent through over active political correctness. So maybe a better second word would have been “Shackled”.


This one requires some math coupled with some common sense. I have read that the entire population of the world could fit within the former Yugoslavia. But that sounds a little bit too close for comfort.

The Netherlands has one of the higher population densities in the world, and it seems like a very nice place to live. The Netherlands (speaking of pot smoking, legalised protituting, Van Gogh killing, of which I am one quarter descended from, Northern Europeans, I have a great story about a Dutch time travelling greenpeace activist, but I will save that for a later post, can’t use up all my good ones yet!) has a population density of 400 per square kilometer, and the world has a population density of 45 per square kilometer. That would mean for the entire world to be as populated as the Netherlands, the global population would have to be 60 000 000 000 – sixty billion. Given that humans can live anywhere on the planet using technology that we have today, it is concievable. So let’s call that outcome comfortable.

In order to be considered “crowded”, like in Gibraltar – population density 4500 per square kilometer – the world population would have to be closer to 600 000 000 000 – six hundred billion. That would be crowded.

Given that the latest analysis of the trends find that world population is going to max out around 10 000 000 000 – ten billion or 67 per square kilometer, and then begin declining due to rising affluence(that is of course if the ecofascists don’t get their way), the world of the future could be more accurately be described as “spacious”

So It turns out that Friedman should have called his book

“Temperate, shackled and spacious.”

Not too late to change the name for the paperback edition. I’ll ask for royalties though.

Therefore you can completely ignore this book, as it will add nothing to the discourse, if anything it could distract us from real problems in the world. Any pronouncements or recommendations for future action should not be heeded by politicians, or the general public, except of course by other useful idiots.

And like futurists before him, no-one will remember how wrong he was.

For Email Newsletters you can trust



Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Thomas Friedman: Useful Idiot

  1. Ray

    Great post, Redmondo, and a great photo. It reminds me a little of my honeymoon.

  2. I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sure sounds interesting!

  3. Pingback: Adventures in Denialism – Teddy Bears « Peace, Order and Good Government

  4. Pingback: Rebuttal to BBF « Vox Veritas Vita

    • Vibrasphere

      is it really true that windmills reduce CO2?

      Given that humans can live anywhere on the planet using technology that we have today, it is conceivable. So let’s call that outcome comfortable.

      Maybe you should try living in Antarctica…or on the top of a mountain. It seems rather ignorant to claim that humans can live anywhere on this planet. There’s always that nagging problem of enough food and potable water.

  5. Nice post.
    One could live in Antarctica – you would just need enough money to fly or dogsled in the necessities of life. Or if you had enough money to build a biosphere, I suppose.
    Knew people who lived completely “off the grid” in Australia except for a telephone line. The telephone line, was considered necessary to be able to keep in touch with everyone that they knew. Australia, of course, has more than enough sun to keep the levels of electricity consistent. They used solar panels and batteries for creating energy. They had (if I remember correctly) a well in case the water pumps failed, etc. They did not depend on any of the things that those of us in cities need. However, they had plenty of land, plenty of sunshine and water. It took them some years to put it all together. The initial outlay was quite expensive.
    I always thought that the Malthusian apocalypse was a bit of a stretch. Economic prosperity tends to lower the birth rate. In that sense, raising the standard of living everywhere (instead of trying to lower everyone to some kind of common denominator) would be a solution to “overpopulation”, if indeed one is needed. The question is how we get there.
    The issue always comes down to money, and how we choose to construct our societies – and how big they get – not how many people there are in the world.
    The fear mongering of the Thomas Friedman’s of the world do not help.

  6. The time thing must be a function of the domain that you and Ray Harvey use for your blogs. It is 11:45 am right now. My post says 3:44 pm. So is the domain server in the Canary Islands or Atlantis 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s